SCOTUS rejects most of Arizona immigration law

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Tricky

I know that when I was in Arizona last April, I had to pass through checkpoints several times. Most times they just asked where we were from. Other times, they just looked at our pasty white skin and waved us through. 'Course, that's the US Border Patrol.

Practices and authorities of the U.S. Border Patrol are not what is at issue here. (Of course, the matter is confused when the federal government requests the cooperation of state authorities, but see above: it's tough to argue cooperation against the will of the entity with which you claim to be cooperating.)

[daredelvis]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Maybe getting pulled over for speeding and being unable to produce a driver's license, identification, and speaking little English?

Many U.S. citizens speak little English. This is especially true near the boarder in Arizona. Being proficent in English is not a requirement for citizenship.

Daredelvis

[Neally]

Originally Posted by daredelvis

Many U.S. citizens speak little English. This is especially true near the boarder in Arizona. Being proficent in English is not a requirement for citizenship.

No one suggested it was. Cops use the total context of scenarios and situations to determine if something is suspicious or not. No racial, or language profiling is necessary.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by daredelvis

Many U.S. citizens speak little English.

Legal non-citizens too.

[daredelvis]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Legal non-citizens too.

But they may fall into a group that is required to carry proof of status at all times. There is no requirement for citizens.

How long do you think this will take to be abused? Remember, we are talking about Arpio's Arizona here (he ain't the only bigot sheriff in Arizona either).

Daredelvis

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

So what would give a cop reasonable suspicion (in the absence of detention for probable cause)? Speaking little English?

I already gave one example. It's not difficult to think of many others.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by daredelvis

Many U.S. citizens speak little English. This is especially true near the boarder in Arizona. Being proficent in English is not a requirement for citizenship.

Daredelvis

Having vocal cords that work isnt a requirement for citizenship, *or* a driver's license, last I checked... of course, I don't live in Wildcat's America.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by daredelvis

Many U.S. citizens speak little English. This is especially true near the boarder in Arizona. Being proficent in English is not a requirement for citizenship.

Daredelvis

Lucky for you...

But a citizen will be able to produce a driver's license, and if not will be arrested for driving without a license and their identity will be determined while in custody.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Having vocal cords that work isnt a requirement for citizenship, *or* a driver's license, last I checked... of course, I don't live in Wildcat's America.

People don't need a driver's license to drive a car on a public street in your America?

Or perhaps you were unable to read my post and comprehend what you read?

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Neally

No one suggested it was. Cops use the total context of scenarios and situations to determine if something is suspicious or not. No racial, or language profiling is necessary.

So answer the question... exactly what 'information, observations, circumstances', etc. would lead to that conclusion, yet aren't disallowed by the Constitution?

Skin color? Nope.
Accent? Nope.
Type of car? Nope
Violating traffic laws? Dream on.
Type of music being played? Taco Bell wrappers on the floor boards? Catholic icons on the dashboard?

The police can 'know' that someone is an illegal immigrant all day, they are going to have a hard time under this law demanding papers, because there are too many perfectly legitimate folks who fit the exact same totality of the circumstances

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I'm no fan of Scalia but at least he has been known to make a valid point from time to time. Thomas is on a loony whack-a-do planet all by himself. Or rather, I sometimes fantasize he was.

Scalia can sound intelligent but he also has some radical views and he had a monetary gain conflict of interest with the Citizen's United case along with Thomas.

With Thomas you have to wonder if he even does any work or just delegates it to his clerks. I do believe Thomas is now known for NEVER asking the attorney's any questions in hearings.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Legal non-citizens too.

My neighbor's aged father, for example. At his age not likely to learn it, either.

[Neally]

Originally Posted by daredelvis

How long do you think this will take to be abused?

Never. The legal world along with the ACLU is focused on this like a magnifying glass. Brewer and everyone on down knows this. They will be VERY careful on establishing protocol that would invite lawsuits.

Originally Posted by crimresearch

So answer the question... exactly what 'information, observations, circumstances', etc. would lead to that conclusion, yet aren't disallowed by the Constitution?

No I will not. Again it was covered multiple times in one of the original threads. The federal government didn't even use it as an issue in arguing it to the SC. People can be questioned about their status when they are stopped for other reasons, but they can't be stopped just because they are suspected of being illegals.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Maybe getting pulled over for speeding and being unable to produce a driver's license, identification, and speaking little English?

Legal immigrants, foreign tourists, etc. after all, are required by federal law to have their documents on them at all times.

I am not worried about legal immigrants and such. My concern is for the 10 of thousand of US citizens that don't fit onto the set of leave it to beaver.

There are a lot of americans who speak little or poor english but here in southern AZ that doesn't indicate citizenship as spanish is almost as common as english. Lots of American's speak and prefer spanish in AZ.

As english isn't a requirement to be a citizen I don't see how thats a give away that someone might not be a citizen. Same goes for forgetting your ID at home.

In realty I don't have to speak to a cop at all. I can nod my head or answer with a yes or no. Nothing requires me to speak english to a cop and if wants to arrest me for obstructing an officers duties or something my right to be silent remains.

Now lets say me (a 30 something white guy) and my friend Alex (a 30 something hispanic) both get pulled over. We have both forgotten our DL's at home and neither of us feels like talking to the cop so we say only "yes" or "no." Does anyone here really believe that there will be point when the officer thinks that he has probable cause to think I am here illegally? How about my brown friend alex?

No. I don't see any similar situations in which a white guy and a hispanic guy will be treated equally without profiling under this law.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Scalia can sound intelligent but he also has some radical views and he had a monetary gain conflict of interest with the Citizen's United case along with Thomas.

Hope you don't think I LIKE Scalia. It's just that everyone looks sane next to Thomas.

Quote:

With Thomas you have to wonder if he even does any work or just delegates it to his clerks. I do believe Thomas is now known for NEVER asking the attorney's any questions in hearings.

He hasn't said a word during oral arguments in 6 years according to wiki.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by WildCat

You can compare a Social Security number to the Drivers License number at the Sec. of States office? I've never seen a bartender/doorman have anything of the sort. At best just a book showing all the state IDs.

AZ drivers license doesn't have your SS number on and hasn't since the early 90's in order to combat identity theft.

We carry that book (never seen a cop with one), we carry black lights, flash lights, loops (also with black lights and never seen a cop with one) and we have several types of scanners that read chipped id's and magnet id's. When I am working a door I can go to jail and be fined so its taken very seriously and we are licensed by the state. We often work with cops and I have personally witnessed a radio ID check take 20 minutes or more.

Originally Posted by WildCat

You don't need to carry anything if you're a citizen. Except in this example you'd need a driver's license, since you're driving.

So what if I refuse to speak english to a cop that stops me for J-walking how do I prove I am a citizen to him? Or since I am white I don't need to worry about it?

What does my state require in order to verify my citizenship?

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by WildCat

But it is proof of legal residence.

See primary ID requirements to obtain an Arizona DL or ID card: http://mvd.azdot.gov/mvd/formsandpub...rmInfoKey=1410

But is that what AZ is going to require? A driver's license from any state?

An AZ driver's license is good for 50 years. So someone comes in on a work visa and gets their DL. They stay past their visa and keep the license. Great law you got there AZ!

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

There is some degree of talking at cross purposes going on, I think. The court struck down the provision that required verification of immigration status on reasonable suspicion alone and let stand the part of the law allowing them to request immigration status verification when the subject was detained for some probable cause--speeding, etc.

It's hard to tell here which situation is being discussed when here.

Thats what I am discussing.

I want to know how I prove my status if asked during a police encounter.

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Neally

Never. The legal world along with the ACLU is focused on this like a magnifying glass. Brewer and everyone on down knows this. They will be VERY careful on establishing protocol that would invite lawsuits.

You're forgetting about Arpaio. He'll do something stupid before summer's out.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Neally

No one suggested it was. Cops use the total context of scenarios and situations to determine if something is suspicious or not. No racial, or language profiling is necessary.

Thats a nice fantasy.

[BOATGOD]

English is a requirement for Citizenship. (with small exceptions)

[Biscuit]

What I find so ironic about this is that many of the hispanic families in Arizona have been here long before America and American's.

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by BOATGOD

English is a requirement for Citizenship. (with small exceptions)

A working knowledge is not the same as fluent or even proficient.

I understand a great deal more spanish spoken to me than I can actually speak myself. This is common with languages.

[jj]

Originally Posted by WildCat

They don't require a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle on a public street in your example?

I don't have to be driving, do I? Duh.

[BOATGOD]

Yes, it must be proficient...

Read 8 USC 1423

[jj]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Lucky for you...

But a citizen will be able to produce a driver's license, and if not will be arrested for driving without a license and their identity will be determined while in custody.

So, I can be arrested for "driving without a licence" if I'm a passenger in a car with a tail light out, then?

That's pretty absurd, isn't it?

[jj]

Originally Posted by BOATGOD

English is a requirement for Citizenship. (with small exceptions)

Please make this extraordary claim in a new thread so we can give it the discussion it warrants.

[BOATGOD]

feel free-I posted the applicable code.

[jj]

You know, this might create an interesting situation for people born on an Indian Reservation. Hmm. Dunno.

[jj]

Originally Posted by BOATGOD

feel free-I posted the applicable code.

Which specifically excludes the people discussed here.

[BOATGOD]

learn to read.

[applecorped]

Obama got his payback by ending 287G for Arizona.

That'll show 'em.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by BOATGOD

learn to read.

Learn not to be rude.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I am not worried about legal immigrants and such. My concern is for the 10 of thousand of US citizens that don't fit onto the set of leave it to beaver.

There are a lot of americans who speak little or poor english but here in southern AZ that doesn't indicate citizenship as spanish is almost as common as english. Lots of American's speak and prefer spanish in AZ.

Then they'll have a drivers license, ID, or other papers proving they're citizens.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

As english isn't a requirement to be a citizen

It's a requirement to become a citizen.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

I don't see how thats a give away that someone might not be a citizen. Same goes for forgetting your ID at home.

I forgot my wallet once when I went to work way back in the 1980s. As luck would have it, I got pulled over for speeding that day. I gave the cop my name, address, and SS#. And guess what? It matched what was in the SoS's database! He let me off with a warning. This really isn't that difficult.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

In realty I don't have to speak to a cop at all. I can nod my head or answer with a yes or no. Nothing requires me to speak english to a cop and if wants to arrest me for obstructing an officers duties or something my right to be silent remains.

You don't have the right to conceal your identity. In particular if you're operating a motor vehicle on a puiblic street.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Now lets say me (a 30 something white guy) and my friend Alex (a 30 something hispanic) both get pulled over. We have both forgotten our DL's at home and neither of us feels like talking to the cop so we say only "yes" or "no." Does anyone here really believe that there will be point when the officer thinks that he has probable cause to think I am here illegally? How about my brown friend alex?

You both go to jail for driving without a license. Once there your identities will be sorted out, unless you'd rather stay in jail than reveal it. Your choice I guess...

Originally Posted by Biscuit

No. I don't see any similar situations in which a white guy and a hispanic guy will be treated equally without profiling under this law.

Your above example was one...

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

AZ drivers license doesn't have your SS number on and hasn't since the early 90's in order to combat identity theft.

So? The Sec of State's office has it on record, even if it's not displayed on your licence. And from that they can tell if you have a license or not.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

We carry that book (never seen a cop with one), we carry black lights, flash lights, loops (also with black lights and never seen a cop with one) and we have several types of scanners that read chipped id's and magnet id's. When I am working a door I can go to jail and be fined so its taken very seriously and we are licensed by the state. We often work with cops and I have personally witnessed a radio ID check take 20 minutes or more.

Thank you for confirming that police have tools the doorman at a bar doesn't.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

So what if I refuse to speak english to a cop that stops me for J-walking how do I prove I am a citizen to him?

If you want to go to jail because you won't give your name to the cop writing you a ticket that's your choice.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Or since I am white I don't need to worry about it?

Like 80% of Mexicans? And nearly 100% of illegal immigrants from eastern Europe? It may shock you down in Arizona, but in some parts of the country the majority of illegal aliens aren't from Mexico.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

What does my state require in order to verify my citizenship?

You really don't know? You've never gotten a state ID or DL or been issued a social security number?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

But is that what AZ is going to require? A driver's license from any state?

An AZ driver's license is good for 50 years. So someone comes in on a work visa and gets their DL. They stay past their visa and keep the license. Great law you got there AZ!

According to the state of Arizona you must get a replacement license every 12 years. I suppose some could game the system during that period, but hey nothing is perfect.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Biscuit

What I find so ironic about this is that many of the hispanic families in Arizona have been here long before America and American's.

So? Does that mean foreign Hispanics don't have to abide by immigration rules?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by jj

I don't have to be driving, do I? Duh.

Read your example again:

Originally Posted by jj

So, if somebody thinks your tail light might be out, and pulls you over, they can demand evidence of legal immigration?

How does a native-born citizen produce that, do tell?

You're obviously driving in your example.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by jj

So, I can be arrested for "driving without a licence" if I'm a passenger in a car with a tail light out, then?

That's pretty absurd, isn't it?

Has anyone seen jj's goal posts?

What does the passenger have to do with it?

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Neally

Never. The legal world along with the ACLU is focused on this like a magnifying glass. Brewer and everyone on down knows this. They will be VERY careful on establishing protocol that would invite lawsuits.

No I will not. Again it was covered multiple times in one of the original threads. The federal government didn't even use it as an issue in arguing it to the SC. People can be questioned about their status when they are stopped for other reasons, but they can't be stopped just because they are suspected of being illegals.

Not by you it wasn't... your oldest post in this forum was just 4 months ago, after those threads died down.
http://forums.randi.org/search.php?s...&pp=25&page=11

And your denial of today's Supreme Court ruling isn't going to alter the reality one bit, which is the real reason you can't answer the question.